Isn’t setting the wage for a volunteer or paid on-call firefighter or EMT by using an equivalent full-time (career) firefighter’s earnings unrealistic, given the earnings actually received?
The long-standing public policy in Wisconsin summed up in Sorenson v City of Elroy (W.C. Claim No. 83-49944, LIRC Jan. 27, 1988): “as previously stated, Ind. 80.30 also allows a respondent to rebut the presumption of maximum earnings, but only to the extent that there is a disparity between the maximum earnings figure and the usual going earnings paid to full-time firefighters . . .[the volunteer] may end up receiving compensation which bears no relation to his actual earning record or capacity. The legislature intended this result as a protection for volunteer firefighters and as an incentive for them to perform this important work. “Although the above case referred specifically to a firefighter, the Department’s position concerning EMT’s and others who fall under the provisions of §102.07(1)(c) is the same with regard to legislative intent, i.e., protection and incentive. Also see City of Elroy v. LIRC, 152 Wis. 2d 320, (Ct. App. 1989).
Related Questions
- Isn’t setting the wage for a volunteer or paid on-call firefighter or EMT by using an equivalent full-time (career) firefighter’s earnings unrealistic, given the earnings actually received?
- If a volunteer or paid on-call member was paid by the department when injured, why is that wage not used to determine the average weekly earnings?
- Can being a volunteer firefighter make it easier to become a paid firefighter?
